Questions On Pascal 's Wager

1878 Words8 Pages
I am arguing that Pascal’s Wager is significantly stronger of a rationale when more social factors are taken into consideration. In his time, Blaise Pascal formed the foundation of the Pascal’s Wager we know of today, posthumously in the form of ‘Infinirien’. Though this is more easily defensible then Pascal’ Wager, the modified version has garnered enough popularity and has enough similar that it is the target of most criticisms. Pascal came up with a theory of understanding the consequences of not believing in God versus those that came with believing in him. From his calculations he determined that since believing in God had the same result as not believing when God didn’t exist. When God did exist however, the consequences of not believing were dire and the reward for believing was infinite. Pascal tried to explain that believing in God was the rational decision when such infinite rewards of heaven and such punishment of hell are possibilities. Social implications are crucial to understanding how Pascal’s Wager might apply today and in countries of all different cultures. I will discuss three of the most common objections toward Pascal’s Wager and illustrate how considering just a few social factors make the decision to believe in God more rational then not. Then, I will explain how though there’s not enough evidence toward believing unswervingly, there is still enough positive implications that can warrant accepting your socially acceptable faith. Pascal’s Wager has
Get Access